Pay Per Digg

According to compete.com, digg got 19 million visitors in march 2008. So i was just thinking if i pay diggers (esp top diggers) for digging my articles (off course my articles will be relevant and of high quality) instead of paying to Google through PPC, won't it be better for my traffic and site ranking.

All i need is 250-300 diggs to get into top ranking on digg. If i pay say $10 per digg, i can get millions of visitors and boost in TR in just $3k (which is almost negligible price if you want the same result from Adwords). This model can later be applied to reddit, slashdot, newsvine, stumbleupon, blinklist and other news sharing sites. What are your thoughts on this? Will it be beneficial in the long run?

Google might got 10 time more visitors at that time.


Digging is useful in terms of search engine ranking, where Adwords is to get good amount of traffic within a short time. So the purpose of both of these are different and it is tough to judge which one is best.


One thing I must say, the Idea is not bad. But we need to implement it in a different way may be.

If you manage to create articles orientated 100% to SEO you might get it BUT them your articles will be very boring and you will loose your readers.

In addtion to it Google PPC will not help you with your SEO estrategies, only with your traffic

So you will end up paying Google and paying digging, so I think is better to leave as it is

I'd rather pay $3k to content developers who can create content that will reach the front page of DIGG naturally.

Your model will work as well, but the thing is...my post will get a ton of quality one way links while your post won't

Please give me the contact details of that content developer(s) who can guarantee top ranking on digg through there contents. I am ready to pay $18k. If such content developer(s) would have ever existed, they would have become at least as popular as Matt Cutts in the SEO world and every SEO would have being dying to hire them.

What type of contents get top ranking on Digg:

1) Breaking news- Google servers crashed. End of the Google Era

2) Off-beat stories-Ohio inmate claims he's too fat for execution (this is real news)

3) How to do stuff- How to end a relationship?

4) Lists- 21 Things Women Can Do That Guys Can’t


So it is all about creating a buzz/getting attention enough to get top rankings on news sharing sites, which is much more difficult than writing high quality article on something which has been written half a million times already.

There are companies that offer this type of service. All the diggs come from fake digg users though.

I've never looked into this, but there must be measures in place to prevent this type of thing. Anyone know for sure?

One thing to consider is that the quality of traffic from Digg is much lower. You'll get a one-time massive burst of traffic (which might even bring your server down to its knees), but don't be surprised to see a bounce rate of ~90% or even higher.

There are a bunch of pay-per-digg services around (and I think it's closer to $1 than $10 per digg), I think there are also a few digg trading services (you digg my link, I digg yours). I've never used any of them, so I can't tell you how it works.

Another approach is to befriend some of the top users on Digg, and to convince them to submit something for you. Just look at the front page for a couple of days, you'll notice who they are. They probably get a lot of solicitations though, so I don't know how successful this approach would be.

You can dip crap in chocolate but it is still crap.

I guarantee 70% of those 19 million visits were from webmasters, seo's, bloggers and other people all doing stuff completely unrelated to what you'd like them to be doing. Just because something has alot of traffic does not mean it's QUALITY traffic.

I'd settle for a couple hundred hits per day as long as every one of them was a potential buyer. Quantity is not better than Quality.

So right, and it's what I tell my girlfriend!

Also further enhances the importance perhaps of targeting longtail (real specific, targeted) keyword strings.

Digg = good for backlinks (seo)

Adwords = good for quality traffic (roi)

Ya but now it melts in your mouth not in your hands!

Go to DIGG, open the top links...check the author and contact them.

It's simple...but I guess the hardest part would be to get them write "for you"...

**In order to win the game you have to be IN THE GAME...you seem to have lost even without playing the game**

Digg traffic is horrible. You'll go broke paying that kind of money (not to mention you won't get millions of visitors, probably only tens of thousands)

The number of potential traffic is irrelevant - you got to look at "motive".

A friend wanted to learn SEO so he drilled me and got to appreciate it pretty good... now all he needed was clients.

He ended up getting a Young Entrepreneurs Grant for $25,000 and because he was a regular of Facebook [he assumed this was like me regularly at SEOChat] he wasted the lot on Facebook banners...

• Millions of impressions
• 10's of thousands of clicks
• 0 sales?

People don't go to facebook to locate a SEO... they go to visit friends & distance family... friends & family might indeed look to see what you are up to... but they don't normally buy from friends & family or SEOs for other friends & family.

How sensible was that? But Facebook has millions of daily visitors and most are repeat visitors.

A Digg strategy - it all depends on what you're peddling... we can assume "direct traffic is all you'll get"... did they go to Digg to find something to buy or for information...

while SOMETIMES information leads people to buy... but before you spend you'd better do some major risk management.